I'm not sure if this belongs here but I'm going to ask anyway. I am currently at University and looking to become a historian in the future. What are the best ways to get a starting job as a historian? Where did you go from there? What types can you give to future historians?

I'm asking specifically for the past decade because new information always appears every year and it is important to understand what happened and update our information from this. Information must always be updated and history changes based on our perception on this information.

Were they able to connect the wet steam from their cooking pots to water evaporation? I am assuming they would at least have understood the connection between heat and increased evaporation rates?

Reading about Isoruko Yamamoto, I came across this quote in a letter of his:

"To die for Emperor and Nation is the highest hope of a military man. After a brave hard fight the blossoms are scattered on the fighting field. But if a person wants to take a life instead, still the fighting man will go to eternity for Emperor and country. One man's life or death is a matter of no importance. All that matters is the Empire. As Confucius said, 'They may crush cinnabar, yet they do not take away its color; one may burn a fragrant herb, yet it will not destroy the scent. They may destroy my body, yet they will not take away my will."

I tried to search for the Confucius quote, but could only find it reference to Yamamoto. Did Confucius ever actually say this; is it perhaps a very loose paraphrase?

On a related note, is there a first instance when we have historically reliable info about a quote attributed to Confucius that we know for certain was said/written by someone else? Has there been anything analogous to the Jesus Seminar, whereby scholars grade sayings on a plausibility scale? Are there useful books about the history of the textual sources for Confucius?

Wiktionary defines "byzantine" as meaning "Overly complex or intricate" or "Of a devious, usually stealthy, manner or practice".

Collins Dictionary specifically lists it as "criticis[ing] a system because it seems complicated or secretive."

I am aware that the administration of the Eastern Roman Empire was complex and can be difficult to understand, but is the negative connotation of the adjective "byzantine" deserved? Was Eastern Roman governance complex to the point of being cumbersome and self-defeating? If it was not as lethargic or corrupt as these definitions imply, where did this connotation come from?

Edit: Apologies if this question is too broad or covers too much time, I would be happy to hear about the efficiency of the Byzantine government in specific seminal periods e.g. in the period of Justinian's legal reforms or in the years leading up to the Sack of Constantinople and the Latin Empire. Was there one particular dynasty or emperor that created this reputation for inefficiency?

Catalonia and Barcelona have certainly exemplified the need to ask this question. When compared to many of its Eastern neighbors, you don't have people blowing up trains and kidnapping politicians all in the name of sepratism.

Going through some things left to me by a relative, I found a box containing a kind of stone stamp press and a letter explaining that it was found in the 80s at the Temple of the Feathered Serpent at Teotihuacán. The letter says that the stamp is 12th century CE and that it was used by Aztec Jaguar knights to indicate their identity when not wearing their cloaks. I would like to find out if the thing actually is what the letters claims it is but I have no idea how to do that. Apologies if this not the appropriate sub for this question.

Urban Renewal has (rightfully imo) garnered a reputation for being an overall disaster for many of the United States cities, especially cities like Detroit and Boston, with neighborhoods bulldozed in favor of highways, leading to economic immerisation and displaced residents for the cities. My question is, the way urban renewal was carried seems to have been so obviously destructive on the cities that it borders of actively malicious. Did the Federal planners genuinely think that they were helping the cities in question economically recover? Was the general idea that the cities were things of the past and everyone would soon live in the suburbs? Or was there another step of urban renewal besides highway building that was supposed to occur that never happened?

Having read through the process, it just seems bizarre that anyone who interfaced with city leadership and residents would think that building highways in such numbers was the path forward.

In short, I am researching family heritage on Ancestry dot com, and have arrived at a critical link of a woman born in 1838, died 1912, of whom I have conflicting info (well, wouldn’t be conflicting if these are different people). With regard to two specific accounts, I have the same first name, middle initial, married name, birth year, and living in Pennsylvania, but different cities (but could have moved around), but different birth states, and incomplete / non-overlapping children (but the child in one account died before the publication of the second account). This person lived in Pennsylvania most of her life.

Is it common to find discrepancies in records of this time period such that this could be the same person? It would be a remarkable coincidence otherwise.

Any advice interpreting this situation is very much appreciated! Happy to share more specifics by private message.

In school, I was always taught that Shakespeare invented new words and that they were later added to the English dictionary. But it's never been clear to me how many of those words were original Shakespeare invention, or slang he simply immortalized by putting them into his plays. Is there a way we can find this out? Google seems a little less helpful than usual.

I'm reading Robert Graves' The Greek Myths. I am aware that his analysis has been met with criticism but I am finding his perspective unique. In the section on Jason, he mentions that since the myth of the Argonauts was written there has been conflict in how to reconcile the fact that they travel to the East (Colchis) but upon their return encounter beings and geography of the West (Sirens, Libya, etc.) and that to explain this, many have gone to extremes with very liberal theories as to how the Argo ends up near Italy.

Graves however says that the oldest Minyan version of the tale almost certainly had their destination and the court of Aeetes in the Adriatic, near the River Po. Homer, for instance, mentions the Argonauts, but never Colchis, and that it was only much later versions that specified a geographic location of the fleece (added to this that Colchis as a political entity only appears in records from the 8th century BC) and made that destination in what would have been the most extreme Eastern part of the world from a Greek perspective.

My question, finally, is: does anyone have knowledge of any scholarship or academic validation regarding this theory, that the oldest version of Jason's journey were to the coast of Italy?

I have heard that the Norman use of cavalry is what allowed them to conquer England in 1066. Is this true? Did nobody else use cavalry?

I understand that this was considered something of a panacea for many sorts of crimes, especially for political crimes. My understanding is it helped the government by getting rid of people and also by populating Siberia with Russian nationalists. What exactly did this mean in practical terms?

Were there prisons or work camps that people were sent to? Were they just dropped off on some town along the railroad and given some sort of freedom as long as they lived out there?

What stopped people from just leaving? Either going back to European Russia under an assumed identity or going to another country?

I understand cultures have different interpretations of colours, particularly blues and greens, with some languages having no native words to differentiate the two. But Homer's Iliad repeatedly refers to black blood. Why is this? Fresh blood from a wound is quite clearly red.

I have a fair passion for history, hours spent watching channels like Historia Civilis, KaG etc, but kinda realised after looking at previous posts that watching YT videos which are made for entertainment may not be the best for accuracy

So I want to start getting into reading books the two I wanted to start with being Rubicon by Tom Holland and The Peloponnesian War by Donald Kagan (These are the two non picture only or horrible history books in our school library and also don’t really know much about books tbh)

After seeing what people thought about Tom Holland im starting to have second thoughts but nothing about Donald Kagan, so any opinions?

Also any book reccomendations would be appreciated :)

Hello there! I have to make a project about gestures in Early Italy so I wanted to ask you if you know something about this subject and/or if you have some book recommendations to read about it. Thank you!

And if the US did plan any similar missions, why did they not pull through?

Edit: I was misinformed about Venera 7 being the only mission to successfully transmit data from the surface of Venus, as there were later Venera missions that were able to do so.